It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US declares Afghanistan major non-NATO ally, as Clinton makes unannounced visit

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:14 PM
I did a search on this and found nothing, mods please move if its in the wrong forum.


I came across this story in the news and found it quite interesting given the recent events with Syria. With the recent ramping up in rhetoric from all sides over the Syria "crisis" I find it interesting that Hillary made an unexpected visit to Afghan just to announce this.

This is nothing more than securing logistical strategies and adding fuel to the fire and risking a further escalation. With Hillary making the announcement that Afghanistan is a major albeit non NATO ally, it means that any movement onto or into Afghanistan by anyone will be a threat to US interests and justify any military action.

We are seeing way too much friction that will spread beyond just the Mideast and could very well turn bad for us all. TPTB are aware of this and are all doing the typical pre SHTF moves. We will never be out of Afghanistan, not at the rate we are going, and there is a reason for that. If we actually reached an exit goal then we would have to exit and lose our influence, and strategic location.

Several days ago I read a USA Today article that said we were building a $92 million "Pentagon" in Kabul for the Afghan Generals to use. Here's the source:


Of course Afghanistan is going to be a major ally, it is the center of operations for all US military activities in the Mideast and will be a strategic staging point for the war against Iran.

ETA: while it is fox news, there are several other results on the web.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

Yes an unannounced visit because negotiations are tough and this is hardball.

Kofi and Hilary are wondering about Syria.

In 2010 Syrian President visits Cyprus, in first official visit um let me look it up...

Cyprus Syrian president Bashar al-Assad became the first Syrian head of state to visit Cyprus in November 2010, resulting in the signing of five agreements between the two countries and pledges to work closer together on issues of common interest. The two leaders agreed to enhance cooperation in the sectors of tourism, construction, energy, transport, education, services, and telecommunications, as well as other fields in the public and private sector. The most important agreement signed was on coordinating search and rescue services. In addition, Cyprus and Syria signed agreements on cooperation in Telecommunications and Information Technology Services, Air Services, cultural cooperation for 2009–2011, Social Security and Agriculture. The 7th Protocol for the implementation of the agreement on Tourism Cooperation for the years 2009–2011 was also signed. The two countries also reached an agreement on technical cooperation between the Central Banks of the two countries. After the talks, Christofias awarded al-Assad the Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III, while the Syrian leader presented Christofias with the National Order of Ummayya with the Grand Sash.

Ok so they are buddies.

And Turkey is not exactly a buddy of Syria, and that is why I suggested that the Silk Road come down the E90 at the northern tip of Syria, where it meets Iraq and Turkey and it goes around Syria into Iraq, that the connector to Tartus could serve as their terminal in the Silk Road, and then Cyprus and Greece could get their goods from Tartus, and the goods that hit Turkey can go to Europe by an alternate route.

Remember the critical alternate route when planning a trade route through territory that is often disrupted.

So, if goods go North through Turkey, then they are traveling by ground. Well is that cheaper than shipping it via Greece or Cyprus?

Syria has a 400 ship merchant navy, but no dry dock, and no money for repairs of the fleet.

So I don't understand what could be troubling Kofi and Hilary when things seem to be organized there already in Syria.
Its just a matter of applying some IMF funds there to build a dry dock, and a trade hub at Tartus, then build one at the same time in Turkey.

You may not need a port in Turkey but maybe ground travel is the way to go so all things trucks and planes and whatever to get goods to Europe and a trade hub where wholesalers can buy and sell and middle goods.

45 hours Istanbul to Paris by truck I suppose or Paris to Istanbul.

3 hours by plane.

Docks in Turkey at Mersin which is close to the E90

So then in Syria, a business can set up shop, but only for 15 years if it is foreign owned.

And foreigners are allowed to buy land, but they cannot pass it on to their children.

So since it is a small country that wants to preserve its culture and they are poor and everyone else is rich, like the Arabs who have been investing in housing development, I think that if we were to invest in Syria through the IMF and build that trade hub, fix that port, build a dry dock, we could do that for 10 billion.
5 billion for the hub and 5 billion for the dry dock.

So then that brings economic development money and stability and then they can buy out any foreign body who does not like the laws that Syria has to protect itself from foreign ownership.
If that is what is behind this dispute.

Maybe he might be persuaded to allow an extension of another 15 years, in the case of where some business wants to operate there?

You see if we invest anything there, we want the land donated, firstly, the trade hub site has to be donated land, then we want global security on site, then we want it to be like an embassy, that is a free trade zone in the sense that foreign companies can rent space there.
The IMF and the G20 will create an organization that will own the trade hubs, as part of a global trade network, that also houses the Internet. It sounds like Imperialism but you know its for trade and commerce, and not for public transportation or public use in general. Its a data connection between hubs for secure banking etc.

So we want the trade hub to be isolated from local politics and we want a standard operation world-wide like a company.

The Dry docks, well Russia is leasing the docks at Tartus, and so lease improvements would be welcome by Syria. So then Russia if they undertake to do the job, with IMF funding, well thats separate money from our trade hub projects and if 5 billion for that is too much then make it less.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:21 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

I can imagine you need more information. To connect a hub to the Internet, you just connect it. Since all the hubs will use the same heavy encryption, its unbreakable encryption, so there is no spying possible. Today business and banking is threatened by industrial espionage.

Well they have pleaded and pleaded for us to fix it, and all we have done is put band-aids on it and they keep getting robbed by cyber criminals. SO once all the hubs are connected to the Internet, those hubs share heavy encryption, and the banks also hire companies to encrypt data before it hits the main line so you have double encryption. Ok, so if we are spending this whack of money, we better deliver.

So connecting them to the Internet is easy, even if you do not have fiber optic cables yet.

So the business side of it, will be offices for trade, and insurance companies and banking, and website services network services and then as far as the goods that go through, we want to conform to standards so there will be standards put on that route. Anything that gets shipped through there will meet global standards so that we are shipping safe food as an example and not contaminated food, and that sort of thing.

Each government the route passes through, can also impose their own laws, but they have to understand that irrational trade laws, only hurt themselves and their businesses.

We could make agreements to share the security or make a separate organization. The IMF has 188 countries, and the G20, has 20, which include the G7 and Russia and China.

A 2011 report released by the Asian Development Bank predicted that large Asian economies such as China and India would play a more important role in global economic governance in the future. The report stated that the rise of emerging market economies heralded a new world order, in which the G-20 would become the global economic steering committee.[23]

The report furthermore noted that Asian countries had led the global recovery following the late-2000s recession. It predicted that the region would have a greater presence on the global stage, shaping the G-20 agenda for balanced and sustainable growth through strengthening intraregional trade and stimulating domestic demand.[23]

So, as you can see, we are following well conceived plans of economic development, and this new proposed global project, is to invest 450 billion dollars from the recovery fund, to create employment by building a new global trade network. And then to use that global network, as a diplomatic tool, to improve trade relations world wide and to help countries to understand their trade industry better, with better demographics.

Science will be involved, they will use cloud based distribution systems to move goods and it will of course be top of the line, brand new technology, and a boost for white collar jobs, and blue collar jobs. And it will fix banking, and it will encourage business on the Internet, and help to manage the global food supply in accordance with the UN, the 188 countries again.

So its the New World Order committee, it will be ran by their best economists and finance ministers, the G20, it a global project by and for the people.
I can't see why anyone would not want it, they might just at this point not understand it.

It is a great big global shipping company, that will own terminals everywhere, and the ownership is the people, and it will provide facilities for other shipping companies to use. And trade related businesses.

So looking at the map of Syria...

Homs might be the the place for a hub. Lebanon will get one too.

Tartus is probably the best place to put a dry dock.

If Homs is not the best place, then wherever the leadership in Syria decide is the best place we will look at, because THEY have to donate the land. And we need as much land as maybe the Singapore Airport in size.
Thats a 5 billion dollar project. approx.

And then in Afghanistan...

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

I should point out that at these trade hubs inside foreign companies can rent space, lease space, and the government of Syria for instance would have a trade office inside there. And I would expect that some of the space in each hub would be dedicated to local business sine the whole idea is to foster trade.

You have agents, agents put seals on containers, containers get shipped. One hub does not open the containers of someone else if it is just passing through if it has a seal on the container. That is how shipping is supposed to work.

Criminals don't like that but then criminals never prosper.

What if one day a container blows up? And?

You then go to your country and make 5 new laws. But in the trade hub country they will bury the dead and carry on, because we will not bow to terrorism of any kind. Things always blow up, does that mean you can't ship food the next day or that now you have to search everyone's shoes? In your own country, but these hubs are a free trade zone run by actual professionals operating within the law. In lieu of laws, then we will try to use International Law the World Court, where it is not effective, the WTO. But the G20 will manage the project.

If some nation tries to disrupt the route, well we will have to cross that when the time comes, but each hub will have a bomb shelter for staff and people on site when the crazed maniacs break down the fence.
Its a shipping company that ships goods including food. Its not going to be a walk in the park.

Afghanistan, well that area is perfect for pharmaceutical companies to get together make long range plans for the region, and put a prospectus to the Afghan gov, for a long term lease. 100 year lease.

And they will abide by global standards and those standards in the G20 as a for instance are the high standards that people have come to expect when you open a bottle of pills.

The holistic side of that, is offshoot industry that grows crops for holistic health needs maybe or just as part of the market Eastern Medicine, and all of that as well. And if you examine the current models in the modern world, both types of medicine exist side by side. And the Internet actually favors holistic health.
Japan and Russia have agreed to look after security, by way of funds, and very generously too I might add.
So to not take advantage of that would be foolish.
America wants to partner with Japan, probably, so that they can have a presence there and not be seen as being antagonistic.
However, the SCO wants to manage security writ large there since their mandate is to preserve the cultural integrity of the region.
So in Tokyo, you will have to be talking to Japan about joint ventures and joint venture companies in the pharmaceutical industry. China will develop the mineral resources in Afghanistan and in oh less than 10 years their GDP PPP will be close to Iran of today.
If we build those hubs of course Iran will get one, and their GDP PPP will double in that same period of time because they already are active in trade and commerce. 13,000 GDP PPP today, as opposed to 3,000 GDP PPP for Syria.

So the idea of the Silk Road route is to help Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Syria, Turkey, all of Europe as a result, and fix their banking, and well as the route moves into Asia, it rescues Afghanistan from perpetual poverty, (second poorest nation) and it helps the emerging economies find markets so we will put hubs right through to Japan, China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Brazil contributed to the fund as well and South America will get trade hubs as well.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Romania prepares for referendum to impeach president\07\08\story_8-7-2012_pg4_3

You see they re sacrificing their president today, like Pakistan did, to be sure they are on the right side of this project. Since goods going through Istanbul, well look at the map again...

So Kosovo Serb handshake gong on today too and coincidentally, Angelina landed in that area for a film festival.

So although this is a global project we have in mind, the first order of business should be to fix the Silk Road, and to have an alternate route through Turkey to Europe. And so we want to also put hubs there.

Now we have 90 hubs we can place globally, and we can get approval for nodes, 3 per hub, which would be like shipping depots that are connected. But that would come later and more money of course.

So areas not able to have a hub could have a node. But a hub could serve a large area. If it had to.
Like Africa may only get 5 since the economic advantage of putting more isn't there yet.

South America might get more than 5, since it has a lot of resources and already lots of commerce.
But if we just do the Silk Road first, then we can build on that success.
Connecting people to global markets. If nothing else, Internet companies would like that.
And Internet trade is quite large as you might expect.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So in Afghanistan a hundred year lease to a group of pharmaceutical companies, and then they will invest in power plant for their use and or import power, and they will maintain their own facilities. And business of that nature will follow that industry's lead. So our global outlook for Afghanistan will be to encourage medicine and medicinal ingredients in that region.
That brings a lot of good paying professional jobs. And the trade hub that we will build for the industry, will of course reflect their high standards and be something they feel comfortable using. It will be geared for that industry.
They will of course have to comply with the usual standards and not pollute.

And operate safely. There is no need for me to write too much as to how that could or should be done since it is done every day all over the world where people invest large sums of money for mutual benefit.

That's just one country. Syria is another kettle of fish. Did I say fish? As in fish farms? There are fish farms in Greece, Scandinavia lots of places where they farm seafood and did you know, that Asia has the largest number of Internet users, one billion, thats 48 percent of all users, and they like fish. A lot.

So there is a market for fresh and frozen seafood that could travel along that route.

Canadians, gor bless em, have suggested floating dirigibles, to carry noodles to Asia, to make a killing on the free market. We make dirigibles, fancy ones, we could make you some that will carry stuff cheap!

We do logging with them. They look like flying saucers.

But some day you will have high speed trains maybe, or giant transport planes, to reduce shipping times on the Silk Road.

At present however, people grow crops, they want to sell crops. people want to buy crops to make products.

We want a piece of that action as the UN, because when there is a deal, like almost free, we want to be there to add that crop to global surpluses and create MRE's for emergency relief. Rather than see it go to waste.

Syria, the problem of course is foreign ownership laws, that is what this dispute they are having is over, and basically I am on the favor of countries protecting their culture. And they have the right to make foreign ownership laws.
And you can see their new law here...

And if you want to know about their real estate you can see that here...
Sorry for giving you a scientific analysis...

Soon after assuming power in 2000, Bashar al-Asad introduced wide-ranging economic reforms

Such changes built on the more limited market-friendly reforms gradually implemented by Bashar’s father, Hafiz al-Asad. Economic liberalization during Bashar’s regime also differed from his father’s in that it was advised by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), i.e., the IMF and the World Bank, which allegedly claimed that these reforms would promote macroeconomic stabilization. The parallel conviction that evolved among Syrian policymakers was that neoliberal policies and expanded private sector activities would inevitably “trickle down” and improve the social conditions of the majority of Syrians in terms of job creation and expanded social services. Nevertheless, a succinct review of the socioeconomic conditions of the past ten years reveals that developmental and welfare gains have not materialized. The move toward the market economy neglected equitable income distribution and social protection, thereby culminating in anti-developmental economic growth.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

"Economic liberalization during Bashar’s regime also differed from his father’s in that it was advised by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), i.e., the IMF and the World Bank, which allegedly claimed that these reforms would promote macroeconomic stabilization. "

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So in the interests of peace, perhaps you might persuade the Syrian government to allow for a renewal after the 15 year maximum, for business, on approval.

Also, foreign individuals and companies are allowed to rent offices and residences for a maximum period of 15 years, which is not renewable.

I don't think that anyone has to go there and build sky scrapers. I think that those people are dirt poor, and they are farmers mostly, and they need a market for their products.

Today, Syria is considered a lower middle-income country with a per capita income of almost $1,200, despite low inflation, moderately low debt, and numerous foreign asset reserves. This is most likely because, in recent years, growth performance has deteriorated as oil production has begun to wane. Syria’s economic well-being is highly dependent on the oil and agriculture sectors, as the oil sector is equivalent to half of the government’s revenue (and two-thirds of the exports) and agriculture sector is roughly 30% of the country’s GDP and employment. Therefore, the diminishing strength of these sectors is having a negative impact on the country’s economic situation. Future prospects are also bleak in that the country’s oil reserves are projected to be depleted in the next 10 to 15 years, making the country a net importer by 2010.

And Afghanistan, is much poorer still.

Even though they get 90 dollars per kilo for poppies sold to pharmaceutical companies which turn it into codeine etc, thats not enough for them to live on.
They sell at most 20 percent of their crop to the global market. Turkey India etc also are poppy producers.

So we want to get companies to buy all their poppies, but more than that, we want to help companies to have a region for their industry that is all their own. The land is not the best but at least it could serve their purpose.
And it could have excellent security, and the trade hub, as I say will be set up to protect companies from industrial espionage.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Lets have a look at an agricultural trade center in China...

As one of the major projects of Shanghai, Xijiao International Agricultural Product Trade Center (Xijiao International for short) is a modern comprehensive central wholesale market in the Yangtze River Delta. Based in Shanghai, serving the entire country and connecting home and abroad, it serves as the main channel for import and export of agricultural products. Xijiao International leads breakthrough in trading mode and works toward a unique trading market with standardized operation, products security system and updated equipment.....

We want to make 90 of those world-wide as part of a global trade organization, and it will be all linked, and be very modern, but in no way will it be, the only channels of trade. Its prime purpose will be economic development, and to foster trade. We would like to isolate that new network of hubs, so that we can use science to test and develop new systems. So its a place where universities can also work and study and be involved. As people come out of university, they will better know where they might apply themselves.

There are other sides to this but its just that globally, the time has come for us to do some job creation and economic development. And using this as a tool, we can do a lot to create wealth for anyone who can buy or sell a product. Where buyers and sellers meet, except nowadays, the buyer could be a guy with a cam corder on a cell phone, and his boss is in Chicago, at the trade center. Or anywhere.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Here you go, this is pretty much what we want to build in Syria and Afghanistan.

Only in Afghanistan the trade center will be geared towards medicinal ingredients.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Well you've made some good points on trade routes however those routes could easily go north or south of Afghanistan and not cause too much problems. The reason for Hillary's public announcement of Afghanistan being one of our major allies is not due to concern over overland trade routes, it is about operational logistics to supply troops and munitions for future conflict, as well as to strengthen our presence inthe region in light of Russia's stance on the Syria situation.

The only thing that is going to be traded in that region anytime soon is shots and bullets. This is a textbook logistical strategy, we build up relations with a nation near where we are seeing future campaigns. We did the same with Kuwait and Qatar before operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and now we are ramping up our presence for the coming Syrian/Iran campaign.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman7
reply to post by Rocketman7

Here you go, this is pretty much what we want to build in Syria and Afghanistan.

Only in Afghanistan the trade center will be geared towards medicinal ingredients.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

So will that be out of place like in Africa? Well we will build these places to suit their environment.
The process is that each country submit a basic site plan, where they think hubs should be, and they donate the land, to the IMF/G20 trade organization yet to be named or created, we build the hubs (jobs) we connect the hubs (jobs) we staff the hubs (jobs) we staff a global delivery service (jobs) and that service competes with other global delivery services. That connects buyers with sellers, and for instance if a farmer sells a crop, that pays the wages of the farm workers (jobs) and with this facility, we don't know what sort of outreach programs we might be able to help, but doctors without borders and the UN for sure.

So THEN we can look at trade issues, and examine the data we have accrued, by scientific means, and also then maybe work towards more political issues and security based issues.
But lets not get bogged down on security issues. If the world is at present NATO and SCO then lets try to be fair and respect each other's cultural differences.
And accept the fact that each side wants to maintain their own region.
Well thats fair. All we are doing is bringing business people together in what may seem like a large project to us right now, but individually, its just a trade center, that might not even stand out at all in some built up regions of the world. It might not be a large facility compared to existing facilities.

Its strength will be in a global perspective, in a somewhat controlled environment, With semi-public ownership.

If you want to manage the global economy, and not just always be subjected to it, and be reactionary, and always behind the curve, then you need to get organized and have some tools that help countries to gain stable good markets for their products and don't forget, that the world has to meet the demand, and we have a large population growing daily.

The real global political issues should be separated from this venture since its goal should be to get people back to work. Its easier to come to terms on a full belly.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Here is a population distribution map. to give you some global perspective.

Afghanistan is on that map with one dot at least. But I would think that the area that the pharmaceutical companies might want, might not be by Kabul.

It might be so different from the people living there that it would adversely effect their culture. How is that for a political way of saying we want to avoid baggage?

But who knows. The investors if we can talk them into it, will decide with negotiations through the government of Afghanistan where they want to locate. Whatever their needs might be.

We want to maintain a positive business like attitude, because otherwise we are just a charitable organization giving vast sums of money and not helping the region or the people.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

You've obviously never spent any time in Afghan, if you had you would understand that it is in no way capable of sustaining any type of commercial interest now or in the near future. I've spent plenty of time their during several deployments there as well as twice as a civilian contractor with KBR. Afghanistan is at war with itself and has been for many decades and the fighting there will continue for years to come, even with a US presence.

We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and helping the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt yet they are one in the same with equal support from and with Al-Qeada. We are giving the Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion, of which a large portion will end up in the hands of the Taliban.

$1.5 billion to Muslim Brotherhood

So the whole gig is nothing but a made up, corrupt venture being played like a ponzi scheme on the American people by behind the scenes globalists with the end game being Iran. This is why we have endless fighting in Afghanistan, so we can maintain a presence and strategic bases to flank Iran. Its all been a proxy to set up for the final multi-front conflict with Iran and quite possibly Russia.

top topics


log in